Amazing 1983 Prophecy: Donald Trump will lead America back to God

[xerx]

Errr... They kinda do and trust me I've done the research to know it. At least, they want "masculinity" to go away if we want to get 100 percent nitpicky about terms and such.

Men, as a gender, can and must stay as a matter of necessity but "masculine" men/masculinity cannot. Y'know, because they kinda threaten the absolute pussies who currently rule the whole damn world ATM. Strength, Courage, Mastery, Honor, Faith, a willingness to lie down and die on basic principle because it's the right thing to do. That's what real, masculine men stand for, represent, and in an ideal world embody. Women instinctually want men like that to be their husbands, because it complements everything they are and ought to be. Truth complements truth and seeks its own completion.

Not to say there aren't bad sides to Masculinity, but the commies and feminists (but I repeat myself) focus on those to the absolute exclusion of the good. To the point they won't even use the word "father" in their manifestos anymore. The term "Father" feels positive to us normal folk. It brings about positive feelings.

Not to them though, because men bad and violence not done to X-ists is never wrong (of whom most everyone is if we really start to dig and hence why the saying "the left always consumes its own" hasn't failed to not be true) but I digress.

There is one part of being a "man" they'll never tell you about because it subverts their whole narrative. They always speak of "fragile" masculinity. There is damn good reason we don't show our tears to those whom we don't trust with our very lives. See, every male did show his fragility at a point early in his adolescence. He was punished severely for it somehow. Physically, Emotionally, Financially, it doesn't matter how, but he was punished severely for "thinking like a bitch" as it were. He got the point after that. Like if you stuck a fork into an electrical outlet and managed to not die. Oh yeah, you're not trying that again now are you?

We men have tried to "show" our emotions to strangers... and we suffered greatly for it. If you disagree with this, if you did this and didn't feel like you could relate to this experience, than you glow so radiantly in the dark you're making me feel kinda proud.

@End I'll surprise you by agreeing with the spirit of some of what you said: there's indeed less room for traditional male personality characteristics to the detriment of many displaced men. What's not definitive is that feminism is responsible as opposed to technology / lack of industrial jobs / atomization / economic system / whatever. The fact that some feminists are adversarial towards 'masculinity' doesn't mean that they're good at it. Anyway, these are important:

* The bureaucratization of everyday life fits the personalities of women better than men. That includes the school system, which is geared towards passive learning—sitting down quietly and taking notes—rather than hands on learning. It also includes the standard office job. Women are doing well because they're better at navigating these docile environments.

* There's a lack of struggle and a lack of function. You mention agentive traits like honour and strength, and there is indeed less room for these within the confines of our domestic existence, as people today are instead encouraged to behave as passive 'pleasure machines' and economic animals. Through my observations, I've found that many men respond favourably to the idea of regimentation by a disciplinarian authority figure; not necessarily because of any militaristic appeal, but because it provides them with a sense of mission and a source of self-discipline. Jordan Peterson has come to represent this authority figure.

[End]

@End I'll surprise you by agreeing with the spirit of some of what you said: there's indeed less room for traditional male personality characteristics to the detriment of many displaced men. What's not definitive is that feminism is responsible as opposed to technology / lack of industrial jobs / atomization / economic system / whatever. The fact that some feminists are adversarial towards 'masculinity' doesn't mean that they're good at it. Anyway, these are important:

* The bureaucratization of everyday life fits the personalities of women better than men. That includes the school system, which is geared towards passive learning—sitting down quietly and taking notes—rather than hands on learning. It also includes the standard office job. Women are doing well because they're better at navigating these docile environments.

* There's a lack of struggle and a lack of function. You mention agentive traits like honour and strength, and there is indeed less room for these within the confines of our domestic existence, as people today are instead encouraged to behave as passive 'pleasure machines' and economic animals. Through my observations, I've found that many men respond favourably to the idea of regimentation by a disciplinarian authority figure; not necessarily because of any militaristic appeal, but because it provides them with a sense of mission and a source of self-discipline. Jordan Peterson has come to represent this authority figure.

You make a few good points I'll admit. I especially agree with your point that, at the current time, there is both a lack of struggle and function and that we're all currently living a "domestic" existence if we're living in a First World country. Thing is, this is why I've pointed out that there's obviously a cycle playing out here.

The r-selected eat up all the "seed corn" at the moment of their ascendancy and have no idea how to even garden let alone farm (eg. look up how the people in the CHAZ tried to set up a garden). The K-selected are different, know full well how to garden and farm but, so focused they are in regards to what is "practical" they forget how the r-selected rabbits function. Thus, they "win" the battle (eg. make the Soviet Union collapse), yet lose the war (i.e. who actually controls the vital cultural, political, and governmental institutions after that "victory" within your own nations)?

Thing is, both sides, r/liberals and K/conservatives have vital parts of the puzzle, yet both give in to the impulse towards hubris at the moment right before they may have managed to achieve final victory over their stated enemy. And thus, the cycle continues. Thing is, now both sides are aware that there's a cycle playing out. Or at least, my side is. I doubt the other side is incompetent to that extent so this election really is for all the marbles.

Thankfully, Sin dims the intellect as it is an affront to Truth. Thus, it's Trump, a man you can hurl insults at all day but who is obviously competent and salient in his thoughts, versus Biden, an obviously dementia ridden old fool who ought to be in a nursing home, not the leader of the "free world" as it were. This election will be decided shortly after the first debate begins for anyone with an IQ north of 90. Do we really want a senile old man who can't remember what state he's in having the ability to "push the button" that begins a Nuclear World War?

[xerx]

You make a few good points I'll admit. I especially agree with your point that, at the current time, there is both a lack of struggle and function and that we're all currently living a "domestic" existence if we're living in a First World country. Thing is, this is why I've pointed out that there's obviously a cycle playing out here.

The r-selected eat up all the "seed corn" at the moment of their ascendancy and have no idea how to even garden let alone farm (eg. look up how the people in the CHAZ tried to set up a garden). The K-selected are different, know full well how to garden and farm but, so focused they are in regards to what is "practical" they forget how the r-selected rabbits function. Thus, they "win" the battle (eg. make the Soviet Union collapse), yet lose the war (i.e. who actually controls the vital cultural, political, and governmental institutions after that "victory" within your own nations)?

Thing is, both sides, r/liberals and K/conservatives have vital parts of the puzzle, yet both give in to the impulse towards hubris at the moment right before they may have managed to achieve final victory over their stated enemy. And thus, the cycle continues. Thing is, now both sides are aware that there's a cycle playing out. Or at least, my side is. I doubt the other side is incompetent to that extent so this election really is for all the marbles.

Thankfully, Sin dims the intellect as it is an affront to Truth. Thus, it's Trump, a man you can hurl insults at all day but who is obviously competent and salient in his thoughts, versus Biden, an obviously dementia ridden old fool who ought to be in a nursing home, not the leader of the "free world" as it were. This election will be decided shortly after the first debate begins for anyone with an IQ north of 90. Do we really want a senile old man who can't remember what state he's in having the ability to "push the button" that begins a Nuclear World War?

I can't comment on the application of 'r/K selection' to political affiliation. I'm not an evolutionary psychologist, so I'll leave it at that.


On a completely unrelated note:

You've probably heard about China's 'Social Credit System', which scores people according to their degree of good Samaritanism and loyalty to the government—incidentally, this is supported by most Chinese. In America, there are now corporations using data analytics to rate people based on social media posts. Insurance companies are already using it to determine premiums; Airbnb is using it to deny service. Link

The most ominous thing is the opaqueness of these algorithms and the objectives that guide them. The law—which is the other Skinner box—is at least transparent and subject to appeal; corporate bureaucracies often are not.

[FreelancePoliceman]

I can't comment on the application of 'r/K selection' to political affiliation. I'm not an evolutionary psychologist, so I'll leave it at that.

I will: End's a moron.

You make a few good points I'll admit. I especially agree with your point that, at the current time, there is both a lack of struggle and function and that we're all currently living a "domestic" existence if we're living in a First World country. Thing is, this is why I've pointed out that there's obviously a cycle playing out here.

There's no "obviously" here.

The r-selected eat up all the "seed corn" at the moment of their ascendancy and have no idea how to even garden let alone farm (eg. look up how the people in the CHAZ tried to set up a garden). The K-selected are different, know full well how to garden and farm but, so focused they are in regards to what is "practical" they forget how the r-selected rabbits function. Thus, they "win" the battle (eg. make the Soviet Union collapse), yet lose the war (i.e. who actually controls the vital cultural, political, and governmental institutions after that "victory" within your own nations)?

Thing is, both sides, r/liberals and K/conservatives have vital parts of the puzzle, yet both give in to the impulse towards hubris at the moment right before they may have managed to achieve final victory over their stated enemy. And thus, the cycle continues. Thing is, now both sides are aware that there's a cycle playing out. Or at least, my side is. I doubt the other side is incompetent to that extent so this election really is for all the marbles.

How the fuck do you determine who's r and k selected?! What, do you not only think r and k selection are reflected in 21st century American political categories, but you think the k selectors are the side less likely to use birth control and statistically have lower IQs? And who do you think made the USSR collapse, anyway? Or do you think the neocons who were saber-rattling with the USSR were particularly concerned that the American government was controlled by the bourgeoisie?

Thankfully, Sin dims the intellect as it is an affront to Truth. Thus, it's Trump, a man you can hurl insults at all day but who is obviously competent and salient in his thoughts, versus Biden, an obviously dementia ridden old fool who ought to be in a nursing home, not the leader of the "free world" as it were. This election will be decided shortly after the first debate begins for anyone with an IQ north of 90. Do we really want a senile old man who can't remember what state he's in having the ability to "push the button" that begins a Nuclear World War?

Sin evidently doesn't dim the intellect as much as religion if "Democrats are r selectors" factors into your explanation of why Biden is the nominee.

[End]

You've probably heard about China's 'Social Credit System', which scores people according to their degree of good Samaritanism and loyalty to the government—incidentally, this is supported by most Chinese. In America, there are now corporations using data analytics to rate people based on social media posts. Insurance companies are already using it to determine premiums; Airbnb is using it to deny service. Link

The most ominous thing is the opaqueness of these algorithms and the objectives that guide them. The law—which is the other Skinner box—is at least transparent and subject to appeal; corporate bureaucracies often are not.

Of course most Chinese support it. To not do so is be a "bad citizen" after all and that's a big hit to one's social credit score. This is all part of the dream of the PTB. Social Credit and the Cashless Society. The two together create an almost maintenance free network of absolute control of the "peasantry" as it were. Why "cancel" someone officially when you can incentivize their own friends and family to do it themselves? Why send goons to assassinate a dissident when you can just "turn off" their credit/debit cards and let them starve for lack of ability to purchase food or pay bills? It "sanitizes" the whole nasty business of maintaining a totalitarian Orwellian state. Who needs boots stomping on faces when you can just issue a few "hints" on social media and let everyone's desire to remain employed and alive via having an "adequate" social credit score do the rest?

How the fuck do you determine who's r and k selected?!

There's resources about it and I've spoken about it elsewhere on this site in fact. To launch into a lecture here would be to go way off topic. The analogy I and others use is rabbits vs. wolves. Bonobos vs. Chimpanzees is another popular comparison. That should start you off right .